Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202101528)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202101528

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

30 May 2022

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. application for a property transfer;
   2. request for temporary accommodation due to ongoing antisocial behaviour (ASB);
   3. request for a management transfer.
2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaints handling as part of the complaint.

Jurisdiction

3. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
4. Paragraph 39(m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme notes as follows:

39. The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion:

m) fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint-handling body.

5. It is evident that the resident made a transfer application with the landlord and provided information about her medical needs, including an Occupational Therapist’s report, as part of that application.
6. Given that the resident wished to urgently move, and that the landlord was yet to offer a property as part of this application, the resident raised this concern as part of her formal complaint. She also requested that the landlord provide feedback on her request for a further banding assessment.
7. The landlord addressed this concern in both its stage one and stage two responses, in which it advised that the wait times were long, and that it would contact to discuss the application further. It is also evident that it increased the resident’s priority band based on its further discussion. The resident has advised she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s responses.
8. Complaints relating to the provision of housing through a local authority fall under the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). This service is, however, able to consider complaints relating to management transfer requests and temporary accommodation requests, which are discussed below.
9. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint relating to the resident’s application for a property transfer is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
10. Should the resident wish to pursue this complaint, she should refer the complaint to the LGSCO.

Background and summary of events

Background

11. At the time of the complaint, the resident had been a secured tenant at the property of the landlord since 9 July 2007. The landlord is a local authority.
12. The resident is blind and is also affected by mobility issues.
13. The landlord operates a management transfer property. The policy notes that a management transfer may be offered where a tenant is at “serious risk” from “serious ASB, domestic violence, or any other threat to life situation.” The policy also notes that in instances where no suitable property is available, temporary accommodation may be offered. The policy notes that tenants will also be encouraged to apply for a mutual exchange.
14. The landlord operates a two stage complaints policy. A stage one response will be provided within 15 working days, and a stage two response within 20 working days of an escalation. The response should include all background information relevant to the complaint.

 

Summary of events

15. On or around 9 September 2020, the resident contacted the landlord by telephone and advised that she had been experiencing threats from another resident in the building, which she described as “domestic violence.” The resident advised this was having an impact on her mental health and requested to be moved into temporary alternative accommodation. She noted that she had discussed this with her housing officer, but no progress had been made, and that she felt that the housing officer was discouraging her from moving.
16. Following further communication, the landlord treated the resident’s reports as a formal complaint and provided a stage one response on 30 November 2020, in which it noted the following:
    1. It noted that the resident had most recently reported being assaulted by her neighbour on 15 October 2020. The landlord subsequently offered the resident temporary accommodation, which the resident agreed to on 9 November 2020.
    2. The landlord offered several properties, however, the resident declined to accept them. She subsequently advised she now wished to remain at her existing property.
    3. The landlord also noted it had offered to take enforcement action against her neighbour, but that the resident had declined. It further advised that while it sympathised with her situation, it did not consider her experience to constitute its definition of ‘domestic violence’.
    4. The landlord noted that the resident had made an application for a property transfer and advised it would also contact her regarding registering for a mutual exchange.
    5. The landlord concluded by querying what additional support it could provide the resident.
17. On 11 December 2020, the resident advised she wanted to be relocated to a property within the local area due to her support needs. The landlord advised it would subsequently contact her to assist her in escalating her complaint to stage two.
18. On 7 January 2021, an NHS medical professional assisting the resident wrote to the landlord and advised that the resident’s living situation was continuing to have a negative impact on her mental health and requested that the landlord reconsider an offer of temporary accommodation.
19. On 11 February 2021, the resident chased up the stage two complaint response. The landlord subsequently discussed her complaint with her, and she advised she still wanted to be relocated to a property in Fulham. She also wanted an update regarding her application for a property transfer, as well as explanation as to why her request for a management transfer was declined. She also noted she had not hear back following her request that her priority banding be reassessed.
20. The landlord provided its stage two response on 18 March 2021, in which it noted the following:
    1. The landlord apologised for the delay to its stage two response.
    2. It also apologised that she had not been updated regarding her transfer application but noted that her banding had now been changed from priority three (lower), to priority two (higher).
    3. It further noted that it had previously discussed the option of a mutual exchange and advised that its housing officer would remain in contact regarding her application.
    4. The landlord did not address the resident’s concerns about temporary accommodation or her management transfer request.
21. The landlord has provided this service with its internal communications from the period of the complaint. In May 2021, the landlord noted that it was unlikely to be a suitable property available in the short term, and on the basis of the threats from the resident’s neighbour, queried if a further offer of temporary accommodation, or a management transfer was appropriate. It is not evident whether this was followed up.
22. Additionally, following the complaint being referred to this service, the landlord’s internal communications state that the resident had not previously been registered for a management transfer, and contradictorily, that a management transfer had previously been offered, but not accepted.
23. Following a query from this service, the landlord’s representative advised they were of the understanding that a management transfer had previously been offered, but that they were unsure of the details. The resident has subsequently advised this service that no management transfer was offered, and only offers of temporary accommodation were made.
24. The resident has also advised this service she has now been successful with her transfer application and has now moved to a new property.

Assessment and findings

25. The Ombudsman notes that the resident is blind and that as such, most of the communication between the parties was conducted verbally, either face to face, or via the telephone. Written communications were limited. This service has not been provided with detailed records of the conversations had between the parties, and as such, it has been difficult to determine precisely what was discussed.
26. Keeping an accurate audit trail is an important part of a landlord’s service delivery. The Landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of any telephone notes so that it can satisfy itself and the resident (and ultimately the Ombudsman if necessary) that it took all reasonable steps when investigating a complaint. Given that such evidence in this investigation is lacking, a recommendation has been made below relating to the landlord improving its record keeping, especially in cases such as this where it was aware of the resident’s disability and that it was conducting most of its communications verbally.

Temporary accommodation

27. The landlord’s management transfer policy notes that where a tenant is at “serious risk” from “serious ASB [or] domestic violence” it may offer a management transfer, or temporary accommodation where not suitable property is available.
28. It is evident that following the resident’s reports that her neighbour had been violent towards her, the landlord offered temporary accommodation. It not evident, however, on what basis the landlord offered the temporary accommodation, i.e. whether it was due to it considering the resident eligible for a management transfer, but not having a permanent property available, or whether it was on some other basis.
29. It is also not evident, due to the lack of records, to what extent the landlord enquired about the resident’s needs when it came to a temporary property. In its stage one response, the landlord noted that it had made offers, but that the resident had declined these offers. The resident has informed this service, however, that the properties offered were outside of the local area, and that the resident relied on a number of external agencies located in her area to assist her with her disability. Given that the landlord was aware of the resident’s disability, the Ombudsman would expect it to have made such enquiries, however, this service has not been presented with evidence to confirm this occurred.
30. The Ombudsman considers the landlord’s formal responses to be an opportunity for it to clarify its position, and the actions it has taken. In its stage one response, the landlord appropriately set out the steps it had taken regarding investigating the resident’s reports of ASB, and the additional support it had offered regarding her transfer application. While noting that the resident had declined its offer of temporary accommodation, the landlord did not go into detail about the steps it had taken to enquire about the resident’s needs when making those offers, which was a missed opportunity. It did, however, appropriately enquire as to what further support it could offer.
31. Having made this enquiry, the resident subsequently advised that she required a property in the local area due to her support needs. During this period, an NHS professional also reiterated the need for temporary accommodation to support the resident. The resident again made it clear her support needs were that she required a property in the local area during her telephone conversation with the landlord in February 2021.
32. In its stage two response, the landlord did not address the resident’s further queries about temporary accommodation. This would have been frustrating for the resident, given that this response had been an escalation of her earlier complaint on this issue, and that as part of the escalation, she had provided additional information about her support needs, and also provided supporting evidence specifically requesting it reconsider temporary accommodation. While the landlord appropriately measured the resident’s expectations regarding her transfer application, its response was another missed opportunity to clarify its position regarding temporary accommodation or articulate the steps it had taken.
33. It is additionally concerning that the landlord’s staff later identified the need to continue to explore temporary accommodation, but that it did not discuss this with the resident.
34. In summary, while it is evident that offers of temporary accommodation were initially made, it is not evident that the landlord took appropriate steps to determine if these properties were suitable for the resident’s needs. While it later sought clarification on what support the resident needed, it subsequently failed to outline its position on further offers of temporary accommodation in its formal responses, which would have been frustrating for the resident.
35. The landlord’s failure to correctly address the resident’s concerns, along with the failure to accurately record the steps it had taken to investigate the complaint or outline its position amount to maladministration in the circumstances. Given that the resident has now been moved into new accommodation, compensation is appropriate to reflect the distress caused to the resident. Given that the landlord’s poor responses left the resident a clear understanding as to why she was not offered further temporary accommodation that met her needs, an amount of £250 is appropriate to reflect the distress this caused, along with the time and trouble the resident has gone to in pursuing this issue.

 

 

 

Management transfer

36. As noted above, the landlord’s management transfer policy notes that where a tenant is at “serious risk” from “serious ASB [or] domestic violence” it may offer a management transfer. In her communications on 11 February 2021, the resident made it clear she had previously made a request for a management transfer, and the landlord has not disputed this.
37. In its stage one response, the landlord noted that it did not consider the resident’s experiences with her neighbour to constitute ‘domestic violence’. While these comments were made in the context of her accommodation requests, it is not clear if they were made in reference to a management transfer request. While it may be the case that the landlord did not consider the resident’s experience to have been ‘domestic violence’, its policy also allows for a management transfer where there is ‘serious ASB’, however, the landlord did not provide its position relating to whether the resident’s experience amounted to serious ASB.
38. As with above, despite the resident making it clear in February 2021 that she wanted the landlord to address her management transfer request, the landlord did not provide any further comments or explanations in its stage two response. This would have once again left the resident frustrated and unclear as to why she had not been offered a management transfer.
39. The landlord’s further internal communications make it unclear as to whether a management transfer had ever been made. Various members of staff are under the impression that an offer was made, whilst others claim no such records of any offer exist. The resident has also advised this service that no offer of a management transfer was ever made and on the evidence provided to this service, it does not appear that there was a management transfer offer made, only a temporary accommodation offer. This confusion further demonstrates the poor record keeping and the landlord’s stage two response again demonstrates a missed opportunity for it to provide its position and an explanation.
40. The landlord’s failure to address the resident’s query about her request for a management transfer, along with the confusion caused by the landlord’s poor record keeping amounts to service failure in the circumstances, for which compensation is appropriate. Given that these failures caused the resident distress in not knowing the status of her request, as well as causing her to expend time and trouble in chasing the concern, an amount of £150 is appropriate.

Complaints handling

41. The landlord’s complaints policy notes that a stage two response should be provided within 20 working days of an escalation request.
42. Following the landlord’s stage one response, the parties communicated in December 2020 at which point the landlord confirmed it would assist her in escalating her complaint. The landlord’s subsequent internal communications note throughout January and February 2021 that the deadline to provide a response is approaching, and subsequently that it has passed. It is not evident, however, that the landlord made any attempt to communicate the delay to the resident.
43. While the landlord apologised for the delay in its stage two response, given the level of concern the resident had regarding relocation, the apology alone was not sufficient to remedy the distress the delayed response caused. This delay without explanation amounts to service failure, and an amount of £50 compensation is appropriate in the circumstances to represent the distress caused to the resident.
44. In summary, the landlord’s failures across these complaints have arisen from both poor record keeping regarding its communications and the investigations its carried out into the complaint, and also from its failure to address the resident’s concerns correctly in its formal responses. As such, an additional recommendation has been made below regarding training for the landlord’s complaints handling staff.

Determination (decision)

45. As noted above, in accordance with paragraph 39(m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint relating to the resident’s application for a property transfer is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
46. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaints regarding the resident’s request for temporary accommodation due to ongoing ASB.
47. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the complaints regarding:
    1. the resident’s request for a management transfer;
    2. its complaints handling.

Reasons

Temporary accommodation

48. While the landlord appropriately initially offered temporary accommodation, it is not evident that the landlord took appropriate steps to determine if these properties were suitable for the resident’s needs. While it later sought clarification on what support the resident needed, it subsequently failed to outline its position on further offers of temporary accommodation in its formal responses, despite the resident requesting it do so.

Management transfer

49. The landlord failed to use its formal responses to set out its position on the resident’s request for a management transfer, despite her clearly requesting it do so. It’s poor record keeping has also meant this investigation is unable to determine whether a management transfer ever was offered, further demonstrating service failure.

Complaints handling

50. The landlord was aware its stage two response would be delayed, but failed to provide an update to the resident, causing her distress.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

51. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £450, comprising:
    1. £250 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its failure to provide a reasonable response to her concerns about temporary accommodation;
    2. £150 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its failure to provide a reasonable response to her concerns about a management transfer;
    3. £50 for its ineffective complaints handling.
52. This amount must be paid within four weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

53. The landlord to take steps to ensure its record keeping processes are fit for practice, including accurately recording notes for all telephone conversations and face to face conversations relating to customer complaints.
54. The Landlord to take steps to ensure that its complaints handling staff have up to date training. This should also include consideration of this Service’s guidance on remedies at https://www.housingombudsman.org.uk/aboutus/corporateinformation/policies/disputeresolution/guidance-on-remedies/ and the completion of our free online dispute resolution training for landlords at https://www.housingombudsman.org.uk/landlords/e-learning/.